IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
March 1, 2010
LARRY BUMBGARNER AND STEPHEN P. WALLACE, PLAINTIFFS,
UNITED STATES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hillman, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
This matter having come before the Court on pro se plaintiff Stephen Wallace's "Motion to Vacate Memorandum Opinion & Order Dated 1/28/10 pursuant to F.R.C.P. 60(b)(1) and Brief in Support"; and Plaintiff, along with co-plaintiff Larry Bumgarner, having filed a complaint against defendants, the United States of America, Ben Bernake, Henry Paulson, Sheila Blair, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (improperly plead as "Goldman Sachs"), JP Morgan Chase & Co., and James Dimon, purportedly as "U.S. taxpayers and private attorneys general," and on behalf of all United States taxpayers; and
On August 11, 2009, the Court having dismissed plaintiffs' complaint because it was moot, and because plaintiffs otherwise lacked standing and failed to state a claim (see Docket No. 32); and
On January 28, 2010, plaintiff Stephen Wallace having filed a motion to vacate the Court's dismissal of his case, arguing that it was procured by fraud and is void, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), (4); and
On that same day, the Court having denied plaintiff's motion; and
Plaintiff having filed his instant motion seeking that the Court vacate its January 28, 2010 Order because when his motion was scanned onto the electronic docketing system, the second page of his filing was omitted; and
Plaintiff arguing that the Clerk of the Court tampered with his filing, and, as a result, his motion was denied without the Court having fully considered his motion; but
The Court noting that a hard copy of plaintiff's entire motion, which plaintiff sent via express mail directly to chambers, was reviewed and considered prior to the Court's denial of plaintiff's motion; and
The Court also noting that it was a clerical error in the electronic scanning process that caused the second page of plaintiff's motion to be omitted from the docket; and
The Court further noting that the error has been corrected, and plaintiff's entire filing has been entered on the docket (see Docket No. 35); and
Plaintiff not providing any other valid basis for why the Court should vacate its prior Orders;
IT IS HEREBY on this 1st day of March, 2010 ORDERED that plaintiff's "Motion to Vacate Memorandum Opinion & Order Dated 1/28/10 pursuant to F.R.C.P. 60(b)(1)"  is DENIED.
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.